In post 2596, cassielle wrote:a reread of my ISO will explain precisely why i 180d on -grey-: the townblock! crystallizing! again! how many times have i repeated myself on this from d1 to the end of d2? all of them. every time someone asked why i flipped my read on someone -- because the townblock is full of scum (provably so even for my reads since -grey- was red) and the reads were crystallizing. i say that even between the reads you all find so suspicious rofl!

i don't think that's the 180 we were talking about, nor how this concept that you're talking about would ever give you a definitive read on someone

In post 473, cassielle wrote:and GAYreen said but did not act upon. in fact said she wouldnt feel right doing it, implying it wasnt a situation worthy of it. it was a lot of sheeping and looking for gold stars imo, which is common for noobs in general. slightly anti-town? sure. active scummy? not so much.

In post 628, cassielle wrote:wrt my scumread on mbg: scrutinize his readlists fromstart to finish and check vote patterns too. sheepy from start to finish, rapidchange in reads between first 2 lists, but backs off a wagon with a strong general scumread (that he agrees on) on it at l-1. could be noob cold feet, but still leans scum imo

gayreen and mbg were very similar at this point (restrained about voting, sheepy) but it's not scummy for gayreen

In post 492, cassielle wrote:something to think about tho for my scumreads: me calling you out is a chance for you to get yourselves off the hook. i am not tunneling in on you, i am aggressively pursuing players who ping my scumdar heavily. this is a chance for you to convince me those were misfires, and i am not an unreasonable person. scum will find my questions difficult. town knows why they do things, they should not have much trouble with them.

egh. first of all, a lot of this general description of how alignments act is yucky, sorta like IIoA. secondly, this attitude as a whole is much more useful for scum than town, since it works as a deus ex machina for your reads and sorta pushes accountability onto the people being asked questions, esp. since you can say, for example, "you didn't address my concerns." while, incidentally, calling me someone hyperdefensive for trying to go through the motions and answer questions/explain why they're bad. incidentally, after saying that i someone answered the questions reasonably and is seeming more null.

i called her out on the contradiction, incidentally, and she didn't really acknowledge it.

In post 880, cassielle wrote:and you sure are hyperdefensive. vote for you = scum instantly? why? why is scumreading you scummy?

and also didn't read the rest of the line wherein i suggested that with her, sarcastically. if you're referring to the thing with gayreen, "scum instantly" is a massive misrepresentation.

880 is a wonderful post, isn't it.

In post 880, cassielle"why is your vote the same exact vote as post #7? why has that not moved? its safe to say the wagon has stalled, in fact, on multiple separate occasions. do you really believe in that vote that much? do you truly have that much conviction in it? where do you get that conviction from a 23 post ISO which is devoid of content?[/quote]i called this out D2[quote="In post 974, cassielle wrote:(though tb looked p undeniably like scum)